Talk:Nautical terms
Bow I know ventral isn't the nautical term, but it is used often in Star Trek to describe the bottom of a vessel, I thought it relevant. | Talah Blue 07:01, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT) Walk the plank I have difficulty with English at times, but I don't understand this page after reading through it several times. They made Worf walk the plank when they celebrated his promotion??? --Makon 06:03, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Yes, they did. I suppose it was a form of good-natured hazing. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 06:13, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::My contribution was not speculative opinion. It is extremely doubtful that such a thing actually happened often, if even at all. I can dig up more references if anyone likes, but off the top of my head here's one source. -- Thylacine 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Nautical terms This new forum has been initiated following the discussion at vfd regarding the article dismissed, which can now be found at Talk:Dismissed. That article has since been moved to and rewritten as military parlance (with "dismissed" being kept as a redirect). This part of the discussion has been moved here in order to properly follow up on Alan del Beccio's suggestion that other terminological articles be moved in a similar fashion. To quote Alan at 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC): :Perhaps we do the same with bow, stern, port, starboard, walk the plank, etc, and merge them to nautical terms? (I'm not including ventral and dorsal, because those are more terms in anatomy.) So, there you go. It might help to read the discussion at Talk:Dismissed to learn more. So... have at it! I agree. 'Kay, bye. --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Conn to "have the conn" How many times in any of Star Trek's many incarnations have we heard someone utter the immortal phrase "You have the Conn" ? What does it mean, exactly? (Moved from conn) :Given Roddenberry's history as a naval aviator, i had always assumed it was navy (or airplane) terminology for "you have the controls" -- but i've never seen a reference to this being the source of it. Seeing as "conn" is short for "flight controller" as of TNG, i assumed this to be a correlation. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:11, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :: Conn is a word of itself, not an abbreviation. It no doubt has an etymology. And it is a role; Trek treats the officer with the Conn and the Officer of the Deck as always the same person, but they don't have to be; the OOD gives movement orders (Bring us to course 123, Mr. Smith) while the conning officer issues the specific orders that make this occur (Helm, starboard rudder and make your course 123 degrees, the bridge talker engines to one half). Basically, The OOD has the captains responsibilities, the conn --often NOT an officer; even the OOD is often a CPO or senior PO -- is responsible for the handling (by managing the bridge crew). It is very important that things be done very carefully, which is why there is so much repeating back of orders and so forth. In combat (or other emergency) these jobs are split so that the OOD can focus on managing the crisis and fighting the ship. :: Finally, these are tasks rather than positions. ALL officers who could be eligible for command (what the USN calls "unrestricted line" officers must learn this duty to be eligible for promotion. It is an absolute requirement to assume command of a vessel. Ensign or Admiral, if you cannot stand a watch as OOD, you cannot give orders about the ship, only suggestions. And even mission orders are ultimately only suggestions, if the Captain decides that he simply cannot safely do what is being asked, and is willing to take the heat for it if his superiors decide he was wrong. 19:00, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :: But I simply do not see how this can be anything but an error born of ignorance --LOTS of people have the impression that conn simply must be an abbreviation. But is simply is not; it doesn't even descend from control or really the same route: control comes to us via Middle English, MAYBE via old French (but more likely not). Conn comes via the French conduce to the archaic English cond + the English conduce (which appears in LATE middle English via the Latin conducere, and which is also archaic. :: In short, given a choice between an error born of a common confusion that shows in the apocrypha -The tech manuals have been contradicted to often to be otherwise -and a the actual history of a word which is being used exactly as defined in the exactly correct contexts by a group of people in which many would have actually performed that roll, on a warship in combat (in 1966, the folks who fought the second world war were only middle aged) I cannot see a contest. :: Huh. I have a bug up my ass about this. 19:26, December 16, 2013 (UTC) "ancient" word I changed the background referring to "conn" as an "ancient" word, and dating it from the eleventh century. Nothing anywhere near this recent is ever called "ancient" in the twenty-first century; and I don't think there's any reason it would be in the twenty-fourth century, if that's the perspective the background is supposed to be writing from. Just thought this might be better. : 19th century Deadwood = 24th century Ancient West. --Alan 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC) "Background Incorrect on having the Conn" Presuming the Wikipedia article on Officer of the Deck is correct, the background section of this Flight Controller Article is incorrect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_deck, and in particular the 2nd paragraph of the section 'Relieving the OOD'. To summarize, in current US Navy practice, there are two separate things: 'having the deck' and 'having the conn', which are not the same thing. The officer on the bridge who 'has the deck' is in overall command, and is responsible for deciding what the ship will do. The officer who 'has the conn' has only the specific responsibility of having control of the engines and rudder, giving specific orders to the helmsman (an enlisted crew member) to change the rudder settings, and to the lee helmsman to change the engine settings. And the helmsmen only take instructions from whoever has the conn. In normal situations, the Officer of the Deck 'has the deck', and the Junior Officer of the Deck 'has the Conn'. Unless it is an emergency, the officer who has the deck would not bypass the officer who has the conn. E.g the Officer of the Deck who has the Deck and is therefore in command might decide that the ship should slow down and turn to starboard, but he would give that general order to the Junior Officer of the deck who has the Conn, and that officer in turn would give specific orders to the helmsman as to the rudder setting to change to, and the engine speed setting to telegraph to the engine room. Note in the Wikipedia article section I'm pointing out, the examples of how the deck and the conn are transferred separately. The Captain MAY choose to assume both the deck and the conn, but both would then be specified as it must always be clearly understood who is in charge of each responsibility. The Background section of this article ia therefore completely incorrect, as it says the 'conn' is the "sole responsibility to control, or direct by order, the movements of a ship. On a Starfleet vessel, as on its Terran wet-navy antecedents, this responsibility resides with the Deck Officer, also known as the Officer of the Day" This misses the point that the Officer who has the Deck only gives general movement instructions, while the (more junior) officer who has the conn gives the detailed movement instruction to the helmsmen to get the effect the officer who has the deck asked for. With respect to Star Trek, at least in TNG and Voyager it seems to me that what is shown is actually mostly consistent with a progression from modern naval practice. In TNG and Voyager, it appears that at any one time on the Bridge there is one officer who 'has the Bridge', as the equivalent of the current Officer of the Deck 'having the Deck', while the Flight Controller is the (usually) more junior officer who 'has the conn'. The big difference to now being that the Flight Controller who 'has the conn' then inputs the more specific instructions for engine speed and direction into the helm console rather than issuing them to a Human helmsman and lee helmsman. (One would suppose that in fact the very specific control of the warpfield, impulse engine and RCS thrusters is via a computer autopilot, which the Flight controller is directing, so the Flight Controller, being the officer with the conn, is in effect issuing specific instructions via touchscreen to a computer helmsman, rather than verbally to a Human helmsman as currently.) Mostly in TNG/VOY the Captain or whoever 'has the 'Bridge' issues general movement orders to the officer who has the Conn like 'Get us out of here, Mr Paris', or 'Back us off slowly, Ensign', while leaving it up to the Flight Controller to actually choose the specific instructions to input into the helm, which is quite consistent with the current practice of the junior officer with the conn giving the specific instuctions to the helmsmen. Of course, the one difference is that in the current world the officer with the conn gives command by voice to enlisted helmsmen, so any officer at any position on the bridge can 'take the conn' at any time without having to move to the helm, whereas in Star Trek, short of reconfiguring another workstation panel or giving the computer steering commands by voice (both of which have happened), an officer has to move to the helm console to 'take the conn' and be able to input specific speed and directional control. Which makes those instances of Captains ordering officers to take the Conn and them going to the helm station also consistent. So if we understand the Flight Controller position as being the (usually junior) officer position that 'has the conn' and gives the specific movement orders to the computer helmsman to effect the general movement wishes of the officer who 'has the bridge', then this is both consistent with being a progression of current naval practice, and the reason why the apparent 'helmsman' in TNG/VOY is an officer rather than enlisted crew as currently - he/she is actually the equivalent of the Junior Officer of the Deck with the Conn who makes the specific control decisions, not the equivalent of the modern helmsman who just changes rudder and engine settings only as specifically ordered. It also makes it quite correct when e.g. Captain Picard leaves the Bridge saying 'You have the Bridge, Number One' and not mentioning the Conn - as the Ensign sitting at the Flight Controller's console has the Conn, and that isn't changing. The big difference with current USN practice is that the Captain or First Officer doesn't say 'I have the Conn' before issuing a specific movement order, like 'Come to course 248 Mark 10' and then returning the Conn to the Flight Controller. However (a) that Wikipedia article does say sometimes a modern Captain won't take the time to say they have the Bridge or Conn when assuming either or both in an emergency; and (b) where the flight controller is inputing the commands by touchscreen, and in effect just acting like a modern helmsman when the Officer of the Bridge does give a specific order, it doesn't really need the verbal specification the way it does in the current world where the helmsmen need to be clear which officer they have to listen to for their orders. So one could see the formal statement of the passing of the Conn disappering between now and the time of Star Trek other than when instructing someone else to take over instructing the autopilot with specific movement isntructions via going to the helm station, reconiguring another station for flight control, or giving the computer verbal orders. So - bottom line: I believe the current 'Background section' of this article is factually worng and should be removed. In its place should be something explaining: (i) the current USN system of having an officer who 'has the deck' having overall control but usually just issuing general movement instructions, and a junior officer who 'has the conn' who works out and issues the specific orders to the helmsmen to get the overall effect the Officer of the Deck wanted. (ii) the correspondence with TNG/VOY with the current officer who has the deck becoming the officer who has the Bridge, with a junior officer - the Flight Controller - still having the Conn, and working out and giving to the computer flight control system the specific orders to get the overall effect the Officer with the Bridge wanted. – 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :Star Trek isn't the Navy and it should just be removed - period — Morder 22:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ::Next time, 88.108, it would be sufficient to say "the section is wrong" with a brief explanation. As Morder said, and as stated on MA:NIT, we don't make comparisons to reality in the articles, so he removed the section you spoke of.--31dot 00:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Removed background , Admiral Kirk leaves Lt. Saavik in charge of the bridge by saying, "You have the conn," while in , Captain Janeway tells Chakotay to replace Tom Paris at the helm by saying, "Chakotay, take the conn."|Most of this information was verified at Tolani Maritime Institute.}} We can't compare the two and shouldn't compare the two. — Morder 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :This comes perilously close to arguing that we shouldn't pay attention to how words are used now simply because this is Star Trek. It is one thing not to make broad comparisons. It is entirely another to argue that we shouldn't turn to the history and usage of the word in its modern context when deciding what the writers (many of whom served; there was a peacetime draft from 1940-1973 except in 1947). Course/heading meaning? When setting a course/heading (say, 57 mark 319), what do the numbers mean? Cheers. Mrinsuperable 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :Imagine the ship at the center of two circles marked in degrees, one horizontal, and one vertical. The "Zero" of BOTH circles is in a line directly in front of the ship's bow. A course/heading reads out as follows (simple example): "Forty-Five on the horizontal circle Mark clearly separate the two numbers Ten on the vertical circle" In physical terms, if you are directly facing "Zero Mark Zero", the course indicated would be to the right of your current facing half way between 12 and 3 o'clock on a watchface and ten degrees ABOVE your current level. :Occasionally, the writers mess up and use numbers larger than 360 for one or both of the readings.Capt Christopher Donovan 10:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :: You can also check Nautical terms -- MstrControl talk | 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) :::You know, when i was reading it... I thought, hmmm... 12 mark 820, could that be 12 mark 82.0? It is common in both Army and Navy military communications to use a short pause to denote a decimal, like the 7-6-2 (7.62 - pronounced seven six two) millimeter of the AK-47 or 5-5-6 (5.56 - pronounced five five six) of the M16/M4. So for numbers larger than 360, they may just be counting to one significant digit, 820 for 82.0 875 for 87.5, 663 for 66.3, &tc. 19:06, November 9, 2009 (UTC) Head We've seen heads, or parts of them at least 4 times in Trek: (in "in universe" order) 1. Archer's quarters during ENT S1 taking a shower when the AG fails 2. Ilia's sonic shower in TMP. 3. Troi's bathtub in TNG's "Genesis" 4. Troi and Riker in a tub together in "ST:Nemesis".Capt Christopher Donovan 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC) :Just to correct the above, Troi and Riker were in a tub together in , not Nemesis. ;) --From Andoria with Love 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ::The head is the toilet, not the shower or room with a shower or tub. TMK, a toilet has never been seen on Star Trek. Well, there was the brig scene in ST:V --Babaganoosh 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ''Head: The "head" aboard a Navy ship is the bathroom. The term comes from the days of sailing ships when the place for the crew to relieve themselves was all the way forward on either side of the bowsprit, the integral part of the hull to which the figurehead was fastened.'' http://www.cvn70.navy.mil/facts/navterms.htm#head Since tubs and showers are ALSO kept in bathrooms, it is accurate to say that if we saw the room where they were, it was a head, even if we did not see a toilet.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Station keeping Not sure about this article. Seems like something that could be squeezed into Nautical terms or something on par with that type of article. Right now it is little more than a dictionary reference with two citations including its usage. --Alan 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC) :Support, for reasons given by Alan.– Cleanse 06:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::Support.--31dot 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC) :::Support. --U.E.S.P.A. 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Merged. --From Andoria with Love 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Keelhauling Just another Nautical term. --Alan 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC) :Merge. As it was never actually depicted, I have to agree.--31dot 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) ::Thirded. (not sure how much sway I have here though) --Morder 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) :::Fourthed. :-p – Cleanse 06:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC) ::::Fifth. Heck, I made this article - had I known there was a Nautical terms article, I would have added it there. Merge away! -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC) :::::Delete. Add to Nautical Terms later, with original or Creative Commons text that isn't copied from Wikipedia. TribbleFurSuit 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::Merged and partially reworded. It was only a sentence or two that was directly copied from Wikipedia, and it wasn't word-for-word, so it's no biggie, methinks. --From Andoria with Love 05:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Shipshape in Bristol fashion Phrase, one that we don't make pages for...— Morder 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :I don't see how that qualifies for immediate deletion based on the criteria above. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I would say #2 and #5 :) — Morder 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :It isn't patent nonsense at any stretch, especially the example given, and it has clear definition and context within both the article and the episode. This should be put up for a standard deletion discussion. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) It most certainly does fit #2 - from Memory Alpha:Patent nonsense "Non-wikified articles. A good sign of patent nonsense is an article that is completely unformatted and contains no links to other pages." I concede the point, however as you're probably right. — Morder 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::I agree that it does not qualify for immediate deletion.--31dot 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :: Originally proposed by Morder as an immediate delete, on the grounds that we do not make articles for phrases.--31dot 23:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::: Delete --- Jaz 02:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::I was going to delete this outright, but I wondered if there was any support for merging this with Nautical terms.--31dot 01:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Support Merge - I support a merge with Nautical terms. — Morder (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) :::: Merged -- Alan 04:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Bristol This article is "double dipping", it's dissecting an "old navy phrase": * PICARD: "Well, soon she'll be ship-shape and Bristol-fashion." * LAFORGE: "Bristol fashion, sir?" * PICARD: "It's an old navy phrase, meaning everything in perfect order." ...It makes no reference to the city, just the quote, so therefore the city is being extracted, but only indirectly referenced. "Bristol fashion" is really the focus here. --Alan (talk) 14:26, April 2, 2019 (UTC) :Support. Only mentioned in that context. --LauraCC (talk) 15:18, April 12, 2019 (UTC) Flank speed and others ever hear the term when the ship wasn't fighting someone? There was nothing at all wrong with my edits. Come about? Come on, you don't think that means to turn around? if you keep harassing me, I will report you. I hereby ask for a review. (I know how it'll go...) --Babaganoosh 13:35, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :First, take a chill pill, man. Any edit is fair game for changes at any time- that's what a wiki is. It certainly is not harrassment. Anyway, Flank speed is not exclusive to combat maneuvers- it may be often used during them, but can be used anytime. You don't have to believe me- look it up. "Come about" is usually followed with a statement of where the commander wants the ship to come about to.--31dot 13:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't see this as harassment, since there are reasons for the current wording, as stated by 31dot. - 13:52, September 16, 2010 (UTC) flank speed is not used in any non-combat situation in Star Trek. And did you see how fast the edit happened? They got rid of all my edits which was unnecessary...--Babaganoosh 13:56, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :How it is used is not relevant to the overall definition. I did not remove all of your changes to the article.--31dot 13:57, September 16, 2010 (UTC) Ventral ;Citation While normally I would suggest deleting this (and Dorsal) unless they were mentioned in dialogue, I wonder if there is some value in keeping those pages as companions to the used-in-dialogue Port and Starboard. Maybe having them all on one page would be the best thing to do. I seem to recall hearing Ventral in dialogue, though I don't remember where. -- 31dot 11:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) :I have added a cite, and an image - . Same with dorsal. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ;Merge Since starboard, port, aft etc. have no pages on their own, I really see no reason why ventral and dorsal should. Kennelly (talk) 14:22, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :Merge. -- LauraCC (talk) 15:48, November 3, 2016 (UTC) ::Merge. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:29, November 4, 2016 (UTC) Dorsal Since starboard, port, aft etc. have no pages on their own, I really see no reason why dorsal and ventral should. Kennelly (talk) 14:22, November 2, 2016 (UTC) :Merge. -- LauraCC (talk) 15:48, November 3, 2016 (UTC) ::Merge. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:29, November 4, 2016 (UTC) Under Way Something went wrong and "Under Way" got clipped at Voy, according to a bracket check I've just run. I'll leave this error for more knowledgeable editors to correct as there's too many edits to sift through for the source (or does someone know a wikiblame tool for Fandom?). --PlNG (talk) 07:29, May 29, 2019 (UTC) Mothball This isn't an article about an actual moth pesticide, but rather a metaphorical term. That would be the standard place for it. --Alan (talk) 19:51, January 16, 2020 (UTC) :Agreed. --LauraCC (talk) 17:03, January 17, 2020 (UTC) ::Interesting vote from the person who days ago created Tug of war. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:58, January 20, 2020 (UTC) :Guilty. And I suppose the mushroom reference added by someone else is a stretch, given that they probably weren't actually playing, but fighting over it, again sort of metaphorical. --LauraCC (talk) 16:18, January 21, 2020 (UTC) Or in this case nautical terms. P.S. Nobody likes a tattletale.--Alan (talk) 18:55, February 5, 2020 (UTC)